"Breastfeeding Moms Protest H&M"

vduboise

catefrances wrote:

if its not about being offended then whats the problem?
my only consideration is for my hungry child. sure i will be as discreet as i can. but if for some reason i am unable to secrete myself away from the delicate eyes of the public whilst feeding my child then im sorry but you are not my concern.

my thing is this:
No one said your child should not be fed when it is hungry. But is taking a few moments to go somewhere less public than the middle of the store so wrong?

Medicated-Genius

facepollution wrote:

I don't think we are talking about the same types of people, I'm referring (as someone else so delicately put it!) to the "pigs" who will merrily flop their boob out anywhere they like becasue they just don't give a damn about anybody else's feeling or whether it is an appropriate place.

Just reading through this thread again, and as stated by many, most women BF discretely when in public. The "pigs" you refer to are the one's that highlighted the intolerance of society only until a few years ago, and through their protest and raising of awareness in many countries, made it illegal to ask a BF mother to move on. These were the days of women being told to take their babies to the public toilet to feed them. Would you eat your lunch in a toilet? When it appears that attitudes are going backwards, the "pigs" will keep the issue in the limelight. More power to em!



I totally agree with you, I just don't buy the argument that this particular woman couldn't have found a more suitable and practical place to feed her child. Like someone else said, most women in this situation would go and find a bench or a cafe or the food court in a shopping centre - that's just plain logic to me.

Again, sometimes, with a screaming baby on your hands, the only thing to do is put them to the breast. I might add that breastfeeding is not just about nourishment, it's also a comfort to a distressed baby.




I'm sorry but that simply isn't true. There is much scientific evidence to show that a human female's breasts are primarily there for sexual attraction. Only a small percentage of a breast is made up of mammary glands which produce milk, the rest is made up of fat and conjunctive tissue. Many primates have a flat chest with a long nipple, which is far more conducive to breast feeding as it allows the baby to breath properly. Essentially what all this means, is that if breasts were only there for feeding purposes they wouldn't need to be anywhere near the size they are. There's a longer explanation as to why they have evolved to be bigger over time, which I will happily find you a link for.

Actually, it is. My statement was OVERLY sexualized. There was a time through westernized history where breastfeeding was utterly frowned upon, and babies were fed milk from other animals via a plastic bottle. This was the norm. As a result of this, the PRIMARY purpose of the breast was forgotten, society evolved into one of intolerance and breasts became PRIMARILY sexual objects.
And, sorry, you're wrong about the constitution of the breast. The mammary glands themselves make up a portion of the breast, you then have primary, secondary and tertiary milk ducts, which are held together by a network of connective tissue. In a woman of average weight, there actually isn't a lot of fat within the breast. All of the tissue involved in the breast and nipple are there to facilitate breastfeeding, right down to the sensitivity of the nipple. If a baby is attached incorrectly, the mother will feel it because the nipple is so sensitive. And if he's attached incorrectly, he will not empty the breast properly and will not be nourished properly.
When humans became bipeds and began walking upright, it was necessary for the breast tissue to evolve to accommodate feeding in an upright position. With a completely flat chest, as well as an infant who has evolved and lost the ability to hold onto its mother, BF would prove very difficult.
Not saying breasts don't serve a sexual purpose or play a role in attracting a mate, but the have been OVERLY sexualized in western societies.



How you would have any way of quantifying your beliefs I do not know. And once again I think we are talking about different types of people. I'm referring to people who allow their toddlers to sleep in bed with them, who breast feed til 4 years + (or eight years as was posted in that video! :eek: ), and who generally do everything they can to prevent their child developing a sense of independence (albeit unknowingly).

These aren't beliefs, they are facts. The vast majority of the world population raise their babies in arms. They co-sleep and have family beds. It's definitely not the norm in western culture, but from Asia to Zimbabwe, from Africa to the Middle East, this is the normal and expected way to parent. Babies are strapped to their mothers bodies day and night, they are fed when they demand to be fed, they sleep with their parents, then their siblings, and on average are weaned at around 4 years of age. Allowing an infant unlimited and unobstructed access to its mother and her breasts, for food, comfort, security actually helps to develop a very secure, independent child because they have made the separation from their mother when they were ready to. Contrary to what people might believe, and yes it's a belief, attachment parents encourages independence rather than prevents it. The research and studies are available if you want to find it. From personal experience, I used attachment parenting with my youngest child, I wish I had with all of them. He slept in our bed until he was five, when he decided himself that he wanted a big boy bed. I breastfed him for two and a half years, at which point he weaned himself. There was no trauma involved, no having to deny him, he simply wasn't interested anymore. He's 12 years old now, and probably my most independent and resilient child. He's confident, compassionate, loving, funny, extremely sensitive to other peoples feelings and moods. Quite the contrast to the view that children who are parented like this are insecure, introverted, dependent and somehow damaged by the process.



I'm sorry but just because someone has a baby, doesn't give them a god-given right to completely disregard the feelings or thoughts of others. Reading though the cross-section of opinions on this thread ought to give you some idea of people's differing opinions in society.

You're right about this, it doesn't give them to right to disregard peoples feelings. Circling back, most mothers BF discretely. I can't say the same for bottle feeding mothers, but oddly, NO ONE has a problem with that.

Dammit, apparently I don't know how to do the whole quote feedback thingy!

Jeanie

Medicated-Genius wrote:

Dammit, apparently I don't know how to do the whole quote feedback thingy!

You need [ quote=facepollution ] facepollutions comment here [ /quote ] at the end of each point, but without the spaces I've added here.

catefrances

vduboise wrote:

my thing is this:
No one said your child should not be fed when it is hungry. But is taking a few moments to go somewhere less public than the middle of the store so wrong?

if it is convenient and comfortable for the mother to do so, sure i agree with you. i cant see me plopping myself down in one of IKEA'S faux room settings to feed my child, but i wouldnt be disgusted if another mother chose to do so.

_

vduboise wrote:

no burkhas, only if you want to - and the Hooters can cover up if they want to. Its their right to be skimpy or covered up. As it is your right to breastfeed.
But what about the right of the others around you. I don't go to Hooters because I don't want to see the scanty clad women. I have a choice on that. Where is my right to be comfortable when I'm out and about? Yes, I can turn away when someone is breastfeeding- but now my right to not see it is gone, when that choice is taken way from me.

Women, go ahead and whip it out- but just be conscientious about it.

And I would think any chair would be comfortable than standing in the middle of the store.

What makes you think you have these rights?

vduboise

catefrances wrote:

if it is convenient and comforatable for the mother to do, sure i agree with you. i cant see me plopping myself down in one of IKEA'S faux room settings to feed my child, but i wouldnt be disgusted if another mother chose to do so.

its not about being disgusted if they breastfed their child, but more on the lines of is there a better place to do it than amongst the clothes in the store. Will taking a moment cause irreparable damage to the child if they don't get fed that second?

vduboise

scb wrote:

What makes you think you have these rights?

is only those rights for breastfeeding women?

catefrances

vduboise wrote:

its not about being disgusted if they breastfed their child, but more on the lines of is there a better place to do it than amongst the clothes in the store. Will taking a moment cause irreparable damage to the child if they don't get fed that second?

did you not read my post? i said if it is convenient and comfortable for the mother. no mention of damage to a waiting baby. or even an acknowledgement that that is an issue.

vduboise

catefrances wrote:

did you not read my post? i said if it is convenient and comfortable for the mother. no mention of damage to a waiting baby. or even an acknowledgement that that is an issue.

When you say "convenient and comfortable for the mother"- what does that mean?

Isn't that what this whole thread is about? The convenience of breastfeeding when you want regardless of the place, and the people around you.

_

vduboise wrote:

is only those rights for breastfeeding women?

I'm just saying that you don't have the right to never see anything you don't want to see. No right here has ever been established on your part. The rights of breastfeeding women have been established.

There are plenty of things people may not want to see. Some people don't ever want to see men with long hair, or ugly people, or tattoos, or people with disabilities. Do they have a right to not see these things? Nope. And you don't have a right to not see a woman breastfeed.

catefrances

vduboise wrote:

When you say "convenient and comfortable for the mother"- what does that mean?

Isn't that what this whole thread is about? The convenience of breastfeeding when you want regardless of the place, and the people around you.

yes it is.
but what you find convenient and what a nursing mother find convenient may well be two different things. and when i say convenient and comfortable for the mother i mean exactly what it says. if she is comfortable with where she feeding and its convenient to feed the baby, then thats it. and i mean comfortable in her disposition and the situation as well as a nice comfy chair or whatever. but definately not a cramped dressing room.

Jeanie

scb wrote:

I'm just saying that you don't have the right to never see anything you don't want to see. No right here has ever been established on your part. The rights of breastfeeding women have been established.

There are plenty of things people may not want to see. Some people don't ever want to see men with long hair, or ugly people, or tattoos, or people with disabilities. Do they have a right to not see these things? Nope. And you don't have a right to not see a woman breastfeed.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying!

vduboise

scb wrote:

I'm just saying that you don't have the right to never see anything you don't want to see. No right here has ever been established on your part. The rights of breastfeeding women have been established.

There are plenty of things people may not want to see. Some people don't ever want to see men with long hair, or ugly people, or tattoos, or people with disabilities. Do they have a right to not see these things? Nope. And you don't have a right to not see a woman breastfeed.

You are correct. The rights of breastfeeding women have been established.

_

Jeanie wrote:

Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying!

I know - and you said it better. I thought I'd give it a try too though.

_

vduboise wrote:

You are correct. The rights of breastfeeding women have been established.

And there is no such right to not see breastfeeding women.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to avoid seeing a woman breastfeed. Breastfeeding is a beautiful, natural, sacred, life-sustaining event. Some cultures respect and honor it. Why doesn't ours?

Turning it into something obscene that must be hidden or done behind closed doors is not healthy.

Jeanie

scb wrote:

I know - and you said it better. I thought I'd give it a try too though.

Well I don't know about that.

I think your style is much more diplomatic than mine.

But yeah, I'm glad to see you here scb. Your posts on women's issues are ones I always thoroughly enjoy reading and I greatly admire the way you articulate your point of view.

catefrances

scb wrote:

And there is no such right to not see breastfeeding women.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to avoid seeing a woman breastfeed. Breastfeeding is a beautiful, natural, sacred, life-sustaining event. Some cultures respect and honor it. Why doesn't ours?

Turning it into something obscene that must be hidden or done behind closed doors is not healthy.

why not?? cause titties are hot! and should only be touched by men for their amusement. thats why not.

_

Jeanie wrote:

Well I don't know about that.

I think your style is much more diplomatic than mine.

But yeah, I'm glad to see you here scb. Your posts on women's issues are ones I always thoroughly enjoy reading and I greatly admire the way you articulate your point of view.

Aw... you're sweet!

I just can't seem to stay away from these women's issues threads!

_

catefrances wrote:

why not?? cause titties are hot! and should only be touched by men for their amusement. thats why not.

Sadly, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

vduboise

ok- this is an old article and some things have changed since then, but the gist of what some (me as well) have been trying to convey.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy33.html

Toward the end of the article:

"People who do not embrace the sight of breastfeeding are deemed to be anti-mother or anti-baby when they may be simply anti-rudenes.

Breastfeeding is natural and our society undoubtedly overreacts to naked breasts. But the winner-take-all approach of extreme advocates only acts to polarize society on a problem for which reasonable solutions can evolve. When done with some discretion, public breastfeeding is becoming socially acceptable with many businesses accommodating the shift.

Breastfeeding need not devolve into cultural warfare. The issue will yield to courtesy, common sense and a bit of respect for the other person's rights."